See here:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/index.html

Bottom line: E63 won the test. The MCT transmission was praised. The straightline acceleration numbers were very close, but the CTS-V does pull away slowly after 90-100mph, and the CTS-V did trap 3.4 mph faster in the quarter mile. Both cars pulled 0.95 g's on the skidpad, and they had almost identical laptimes around Streets of Willows Springs racetrack (the E63 was actually 0.1 FASTER).

This is the second head to head test where the E63 beat/matched the CTS-V in terms of laptimes around at racetrack (Car magazine was the other).

I'm impressed and my the impression so far is that the W212 E63 is the BEST performing 4 door AMG car as an overall package.........fast in a straight line AND fast around a twisty road coarse......likely better than the C63 AMG.

The C63 ran 8:13 laptime on the Nurburgring according to Sport Auto. All signs are pointing to the fact that the E63 AMG can possibly match/beat the CTS-V at the Ring, which ran under 8 min (according to GM). Looking forward to Sport Auto testing the E63 on the Ring.

 

Yeah,... you and me both. Nice to see AMG getting back to basics. I seriously considered the C63 but couldn't ignore the performance edge the CTS-V had. I agree, it's quite possible the new E63 might best the CTS-V at the ring, but they would have to include the P030 and B07 options to have a shot at it. I seriously can't see the E63 coming out of the twisties with authority puttin' it to the pavement with one wheel. And,... in one of those articles, I remember the E63's brakes not getting a healthy review.

But the current V's record is about to be broken anyway. There's a new CTS-V in town, the CTS-V Coupe which was just announced today. This beast is two inches shorter than the sedan, two inches lower than the sedan, wider than the sedan, 288 lbs lighter than the sedan, a better drag coefficient than the sedan, improved front to back balance than the sedan, and a lower center of gravity than the sedan. Like with the C and E Class AMG's, GM also choose to widen the track versus the standard CTS and the CTS-V sedan. Only difference, AMG widened the front track and GM made the decision to widened the rear track. This should help with handling all that torque, which should allow the coupe to come out of turns hotter without getting too tail happy. The CTS-V's front end already behaves better than most in it's class,... it's just that damned rear that wants to come around and pass you if you go anywhere near the pedal without thinking. Yep,... wider rear track and better balance ought to fix that quite nicely.

yeah, I know,... the E63 has 4 doors, so it's apple-n-oranges tryin' to compare it with the CTS-V coupe. But until some of the improvements to the E63 migrate to the CL63 or even the CL65, I don't see AMG having an answer,... yet! They will! I definitely don't see the current M6 up to the task.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-unveiled.html

http://www.ontariocts.com/?p=113

 

Even without a mechanical LSD, the E63 will not be entirely coming out of corners with one wheel spinning. All newer AMG models introduced since the 2005 C55 AMG (SLK55, CLK63, E63, SL63/65, S63/65) come with a traction control function which mimics a LSD without cutting engine power when ESP is turned "off" (like the "e diff" on the BMW 135i). The system works fairly well in most instances, as I have experienced personally on a track.

Sure, this system is not as responsive as mechanical LSD, but it is already far better than the older AMG models where you really are left with an open differential when you drive on a track with ESP "off". It's one of the reasons why the C55 is faster than the C32 around a twisty track.....the C32 had serious traction issues exiting corners when driving with ESP "off".

Bottom line: a new E63 with the LSD may be faster than a E63 without one, but I doubt it will be a significant difference when it comes to laptimes......

 

I'll beat them both in a straight line. 1/4 mile yes, 1/2 mile it will be close. They may need a full mile to beat me in a straight line. Throw in a few turns and I'm done but really, what's the percentage of E55's, E63's and CTS'V's get put on a track?

 

I think a better question to ask is "What's the percentage of E55's, E63's, and CTS-V's that ever drive on a twisty road?"

If drag racing is your thing and you care nothing about handling, good for you. Enjoy your drag racer.

For me, acceleration is very important, but handling is also very important.

 

IMO (for conversation) my car handles great especially when I had it lowered and put on the 19's. So for the kind of driving I do it handles great. The straight line comment was made because that is always the 1st thing that comes out of someones mouth. Everyone assumes that the CTS-V is quicker faster car but there is some skill involved with driving a car quick/fast. What's the old saying "you can have all the power in the world but if you can't put it to the ground it doesn't matter"

 

Yeah,... you are definitely right about the open rear on the C32's. They are poison. Fixin' that was one of my first mods, and boy did it drive differently. Wasn't aware that the newer non-LSD improved things as much as you say. I also have correct something in my previous post,... the weight difference IS NOT 288 lbs between the sedan and coupe, it's only a mere 88 lbs. Read it wrong,... sorry! I also read the MT comparo on these two cars, and they have the E63 fairing much better than I thought it would in performance categories. The E simply blows the V away when it comes to refinement and maturity,... which is to be expected. C'mon,... let's face it, we're talking about a MB versus a GM. They gave the E the nod, but only because it knows how to tie a tie, and the V doesn't even know what a tie is, much less it's suppose to be worn around one's neck. And as for refinement, I don't see the Coupé being any better than the Sedan!

Now if they just fix that rear quarter panel,...!

 

That is very true Hammer, especially with the V having no launch programming. I can testify that with the V, you simply can't close your eyes and stand on the pedal,... all you accomplish is the making of lots and lots of smoke. Things are a little easier if your V happens to be an auto with a W4M tune and some tranny reprogramming and a stall converter. By contrast, the AMG MCT is brilliant at getting the power to the ground.

 

Like ericpd said, a quick, inexpensive W4M tune on the CTS-V takes care of that pretty easily. 1.7 60 ft's on the factory tires, no DRs.

To be honest, with a little practice it's not all that hard to get an auto-equipped CTS-V out of the whole even in bone stock trim. The manual trans version is ALOT trickier. Like you said, there is always some skill involved in getting a car out of the hole, but that goes for many cars with more power than available traction (not just the CTS-V).

I notice you list DRs in your sig, that'll always make launching easier.

As for the original post.....two great cars in a very tight comparison. The newer model squeaks out a victory, but all the cars in this segment are great cars. Congrats to MB for the 1st place finish.

 

It does help to have the dr's but even on street tires I ran 12.07@118.6 with a high trap of 119.22@12.3 and 12.3 is what GM claims the CTS-V runs. (correct me if I'm wrong with those stats)

 

The fastest time I've seen for a bone stock CTS-V is by a guy who runs at the same track I race at (Byron Dragway) in IL and posts on the Caddy Forums. His car is an auto and he's gone 11.99 @ 118.xx (1.82 60 ft.). His car is bone stock. It looks like the DA was ~900 ft. when he ran.

On Dragtimes.com the fastest I see posted for a stock CTS-V is 12.07@120.xx (1.80 60ft. ) at Milan Dragway in MI. Looks like the DA was ~750ft. when he ran. However, I suspect this car may have not been 100% stock and may have had a tune at the time he ran.

There's some #'s for comparison purposes. Here's an excerpt from the GM press release when the 2009 CTS-V was first coming out:

MILFORD, Mich. - ..................CTS-V, with its supercharged 6.2-liter LSA engine, has achieved SAE-certified peak output of 556 horsepower (415 kW) at 6100 rpm and 551 lb.-ft. (747 Nm) of torque at 3800 rpm. CTS-V accelerates from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds. CTS-V covers the quarter-mile in 12 seconds at 118 mph............

 

Those are very good numbers. This also backs up my theory of it takes some skill to drive these cars quick/fast. I checked the DA on my 12.07 run and it was +672

 

LOL! Reminds me of my older brother. Our parents bought him a brand new '69 Zap (Z28) his senior year in high school. He didn't have that thing for 2 weeks before he and the neighborhood hot rodders tore it apart and started rebuilding it. I remember them taking it to a local Machine and Hotrod shop near where we lived, (Coleman Brothers out there on Route 1 on the way to Laurel,... I wonder if they're still there. Prolly not) and had the heads ported and polished, the bottom end balanced, and some other stuff. The day it got back from Coleman Brothers, the guys got together and in our parents driveway, they slid in some 4:88's into the 12 bolt housing and bolted on a set of traction bars. That weekend, he took it to 75-80, the local drag strip of choice at the time. He never could get anything better than mid 13's out of it,... 13's weekend after weekend. One night he let one of the hot shoes in our group drive it through the traps,... the Zap popped 11's and it got better as the night wore on. I love my brother dearly, but the boy just couldn't drive. Nothing wrong with the Zap,... oh she was a screamer. I think that 302 small block was the only GM plant at the time that could comfortably red line just south of 8's, especially after having the right work done to it. Nowadays, you can't get pass 6 before an internal GM nanny limiter gets in the way and shuts you down.

So you're right Hammer, most times it comes down to whose sitting front row left.

 

Thanks for sharing

 

Has anyone mentioned the fact that the CTS-V is about 35k cheaper. I love the new E63 but with that in mind i think the CTS-V is a better bang for the buck.

 

The CTS-V coupe has a fatty, but with all of those horses it looks like it can go with the best of them. I'm going to have to put it on the list of potentials (GT-R, CTS-V, E63 AMG, 6 series, S-Class to name a few) it's going to be a hot summer.

 

+1 and the CTS-V is even more driver dependent due to the manual tranny. It would be interesting to see what Ranger or Jaime can do with a stock CTS-V